In the video and accompanying smart file, we are introduced to several different types of resources to aide in augmentative communication. As a special education teacher, I have not had much hands-on experience with non-verbal students within my own classroom. However, I have had experiences during student teaching and in my own independent work outside of the classroom. Within those experiences, I have used both low-tech (such as PECS and sign-language) as well as high-tech (Dyna-vox) communication tools and devices.
In regard to the question, what is language vs. speech? I answered that language is any form of communication, where as speech refers to a very specific form of communication, such as vocalization. Language can be verbal or non-verbal. Non-verbal language can include gestural language such as signing or written communication.
In terms of low-tech systems, I have used PECS symbols and personal schedules with students within the classroom. I have seen the benefit of a student who can point to "I want" or "I need" and use particular selected PECS to suit his or her needs. This process is time-consuming, but allows the student a quick, independent method of attaining his or her needs. It is ultimately important to allow a means for a student to communicate quickly, to avoid frustration and behavioral difficulties. I also worked independently as a caretaker for a 6 year old girl with visual, physical, and communicative impairments. She was non-verbal except for short utterances. Being visually-impaired, regular sign language nor PECS symbols were not a viable option. However, she was able to communicate through the use of kinesthetic signing. Signing would be done in the palm of her hand or on her arm and spoken aloud. She was quick to learn new signs by allowing a trusted caretaker or teacher to utilize hand-over-hand signing along with a vocalization of the word. She very quickly began to learn the kinesthetic signing along with an initial letter-sound of the desired word. She did not use any high-tech communication devices at the time, as there was a strong desire from her parents and teachers to allow her speech to develop.
Within the school environment, I have had experience with a student who used a pre-programmed Dyna-Vox for communication. The student was in first-grade and at the time, non-verbal except for a few utterances of vowel sounds. His parents agreed to the use of the Dynavox, but insisted that he not use it much, nor use PECs or any gestural sign language. They were very concerned about his speech communication and pressed for more time with the speech pathologist. The student also presented severe delays and was diagnosed on the Autism spectrum. The DynaVox itself was used mainly for requests and needs in regard to food and toileting, and was used during morning meeting as a way to greet the class and take attendance. His one-to-one para and the teacher themselves were versed on how to use the device, however the classroom para and other cluster teachers were not. I see in this instance, how very important it is that all teachers and adults whom the child communicates with at school and at home, should have some investment in the use and possibly the programming of the dynavox.
So, in summation, I have had experiences with both high and low-tech communication systems, but not much when it comes to mid-tech. As for next year, I plan to work in a District 75 school and will need more access and knowledge in all of these areas. I am appreciative of all the resources this course has had to offer me in my research of necessary and relevant technology for my students in the year to come.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Recognition, Strategic, and Affective Networks
I found this week's class discussion useful and essential to understanding the difference between "using" versus "utilizing" technology in the classroom.
Categorizing our own resources, according to need, skill, and ability/disability of ourselves and our learners will ensure that we are not simply using technology to save face to our administrators, or to be held in regard as a "tech savvy" amongst our peers, but to actually utilize our tech resources for the benefit of our students.
As for how to keep these resources categorized, I found our group in-class work proved helpful. Our lists categorized our tech resources accordingly. Placing our tech resources in lists according to our learners' needs, will help to hand pick when and how we use these resources. Within class time, I created a Google Document to list these resources according to Recognition, Strategic, and Affective Networks. I find Google Documents to be easy, free, and user friendly in and of itself.
But what I took away from class on Monday that really resonated with me, was a sharing of resources that educators should constantly be exchanging these amazing resources. For example, a classmate mentioned the typeface "Dyslexie" and how it can be utilized for readers struggling with Dyslexia. I have never heard of a typeface specifically designed (by an actual typeface designer, diagnosed with dyslexia) to aide in the process of reading large amounts of text. Therefore, I quickly "googled" it! The typeface is designed with specific "weight" on the bottom of each letter to allow the reader to visualize the text as being "grounded." Often, learners with dyslexia, find the letters visually floating on the page, or visualize a p, d, b, or q interchangeably because of the similarity in shape of these symbols. Regardless or where the ascenders and descenders lie, the letterforms seem to turn themselves around in their head. Also, similar letters such as "m" and "n" or "c" and "e" are changed in space and weight so that they appear increasingly different from each other and are not visually confused. This sort of differentiation fascinates me! It isnt' a specific program or fancy gadget that aides the learners' experience, but enhances their experience to hopefully aide in an everyday activity that otherwise proves intensively difficult. I hope to utilize this support, and many others we have discussed in class, to the true benefit of my students.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Adaptive Technology vs. Assistive Technology
In the article Disabled Bodies, Able Minds: Giving Voice, Movement, and Independence to the Physically Challenged and the accompanying videos, Assistive Technology and Adaptive Technology are brought to the forefront of consideration in every classroom. Bearing in mind the specific needs of individual students, one must also consider and contrast this to our previous attention toward Universal Design. How do we consider designing classrooms and activities for the use of all possible, and when do we consider special adaptations?
It is inspiring to see inventiveness such as the adapted instruments that allow Loukas to participate in school band, and display a passion that others may have kept from him. It is disheartening to hear the tales of students from the Henry Viscardi High School who previously had not been able to participate in activities such as gym or school plays in their general education settings. But this also brings to the forefront of the conversation, the question why they are not receiving the educational opportunities they deserve? Is it simply that the school doesn't have the resources, the teachers don't have the extra time, the parents don't have the ability to advocate, the budget isn't big enough? Each of these factors plays a huge role in why students with disabilities are not getting what they need and deserve in many integrated settings. It is inexcusable, but it is the reality that we face every day in our public and private school systems.
In regard to the interview between Dr. Richard Keller and Dr. Christine Pawelski, I appreciated the vantage point given by Dr. Keller; noting his experience as a student without a disability, and as a student living with a disability. Dr. Keller's explanation of how the terms Assistive Technology and Adaptive Technology are not, in his view, interchangeable, shifted my viewpoint as well. As a person with a disability, my interpretation held that the term "assistive" conjures the idea of assisting a person with a disability to do a specific function, but this is held in contrast to Dr. Keller's view. In his regard, it is the term "adaptive" which holds more weight and truth. Technology should be used to "adapt" an approach, tailored for a specific individual's needs. It is the technology that adapts, and not the person who is assisted or helped. Though I agree with Dr. Keller's statements, I had not realized that I was still using terms that label the individual as the person in need, rather than the function, the aide, or the technology to be the adaptive element.
What I also appreciated most of the interview is Dr. Keller's pragmatic view of adaptive technology. That is is not one size fits all and that the more "high tech" and advanced a piece or device may be, does not necessarily make one's life easier. AT is highly individualized, and particular needs may be met by simple "low tech" devices such as the voice recorder he mentioned, the speaking calculator, or the color identifier. Simple devices that add to a particular function which he previously held before the loss of his vision. With this, I appreciate and will remember his analogy to the space races"
"Chris: No and we're seeing that over and over again, and I think we are missing the point of what we're trying to do or how to be of assistance.
Richard: The funniest story I remember is someone told me about the space races in the sixties. One of the problems they have to solve from an engineering point of view is how can astronauts write when there is zero gravity? So the United States spent about eight million dollars and they came up with a pen that would write in zero gravity. The Russians on the other hand used pencils. The point of the story is you know why spend eight million dollars on a pen if you really only need a pencil."
There is something very valuable in bearing in mind, how a simplistic mode of thinking, changing thinking to use what is convenient, exists, and suits the need at hand, rather than re-inventing or purchasing a costly device.
Using the example of the Henry Viscardi High School, one can see how the adaptability of the classroom environment and the lessons and activities themselves, allow for a Universal Design that is still open for individualization. It is the combination of designing as universally as possible, with the opportunity for adaptability that schools need to adopt to be truly "inclusive." To put it in a concrete way, schools, lessons, and activities themselves need to be designed the way that an adjustable desk is designed. The height and angle can be physically adjusted for each student. There should be space underneath to allow for a wheelchair to fit or adjustable seating. The desk should be designed for use for a student with or without disabilities. It's just good design. In this manner, we should look to those who design technology, physical environments, and products to ease and simplify tasks not just for the dominant culture, but for everyone.
It is inspiring to see inventiveness such as the adapted instruments that allow Loukas to participate in school band, and display a passion that others may have kept from him. It is disheartening to hear the tales of students from the Henry Viscardi High School who previously had not been able to participate in activities such as gym or school plays in their general education settings. But this also brings to the forefront of the conversation, the question why they are not receiving the educational opportunities they deserve? Is it simply that the school doesn't have the resources, the teachers don't have the extra time, the parents don't have the ability to advocate, the budget isn't big enough? Each of these factors plays a huge role in why students with disabilities are not getting what they need and deserve in many integrated settings. It is inexcusable, but it is the reality that we face every day in our public and private school systems.
In regard to the interview between Dr. Richard Keller and Dr. Christine Pawelski, I appreciated the vantage point given by Dr. Keller; noting his experience as a student without a disability, and as a student living with a disability. Dr. Keller's explanation of how the terms Assistive Technology and Adaptive Technology are not, in his view, interchangeable, shifted my viewpoint as well. As a person with a disability, my interpretation held that the term "assistive" conjures the idea of assisting a person with a disability to do a specific function, but this is held in contrast to Dr. Keller's view. In his regard, it is the term "adaptive" which holds more weight and truth. Technology should be used to "adapt" an approach, tailored for a specific individual's needs. It is the technology that adapts, and not the person who is assisted or helped. Though I agree with Dr. Keller's statements, I had not realized that I was still using terms that label the individual as the person in need, rather than the function, the aide, or the technology to be the adaptive element.
What I also appreciated most of the interview is Dr. Keller's pragmatic view of adaptive technology. That is is not one size fits all and that the more "high tech" and advanced a piece or device may be, does not necessarily make one's life easier. AT is highly individualized, and particular needs may be met by simple "low tech" devices such as the voice recorder he mentioned, the speaking calculator, or the color identifier. Simple devices that add to a particular function which he previously held before the loss of his vision. With this, I appreciate and will remember his analogy to the space races"
"Chris: No and we're seeing that over and over again, and I think we are missing the point of what we're trying to do or how to be of assistance.
Richard: The funniest story I remember is someone told me about the space races in the sixties. One of the problems they have to solve from an engineering point of view is how can astronauts write when there is zero gravity? So the United States spent about eight million dollars and they came up with a pen that would write in zero gravity. The Russians on the other hand used pencils. The point of the story is you know why spend eight million dollars on a pen if you really only need a pencil."
There is something very valuable in bearing in mind, how a simplistic mode of thinking, changing thinking to use what is convenient, exists, and suits the need at hand, rather than re-inventing or purchasing a costly device.
Using the example of the Henry Viscardi High School, one can see how the adaptability of the classroom environment and the lessons and activities themselves, allow for a Universal Design that is still open for individualization. It is the combination of designing as universally as possible, with the opportunity for adaptability that schools need to adopt to be truly "inclusive." To put it in a concrete way, schools, lessons, and activities themselves need to be designed the way that an adjustable desk is designed. The height and angle can be physically adjusted for each student. There should be space underneath to allow for a wheelchair to fit or adjustable seating. The desk should be designed for use for a student with or without disabilities. It's just good design. In this manner, we should look to those who design technology, physical environments, and products to ease and simplify tasks not just for the dominant culture, but for everyone.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)